>My intention starts from another point of view. I think SWAP should be a
>protocol for workflow and because of this fact it should fulfil the needs
>of workflow(-models). By the way this protocol should be more adapted to
>workflow than any other protocol.
>Surely we can start with asynchronous calls and solve the problem of
>syncronization at a higher level. But I think the SWAP project should
>also give a design or initiate an other poject to design this higher
>communication level. Otherwise I think there is no gain at all if everybody
>has to emulate synchronous calls on his own (an we don't end up with
>standardization).
It's possible that workflow models will want to handle some behavior
at the applications level. There has to be some level of flexibility
and control.
The other issue of standardization is complexity. This could more
likely complicate the protocol -- something we should probably avoid
in SWAP.
Art